Chieftain of the PDP, Umar Sani has accused the Independent National Electoral Commission of acting inconsistently and undermining the Peoples Democratic Party by portraying its internal disputes as factional divisions, despite clear constitutional and judicial safeguards.
In an interview with ARISE NEWS on Wednesday, Sani said the electoral umpire had shifted its position unfairly after previously monitoring the party’s congresses and internal processes, insisting that the PDP had complied with its constitution, party guidelines and the Electoral Act in resolving leadership issues.
“INEC is now playing a double game, unfortunately.”
He explained that the party had acted strictly within the provisions of its constitution, guidelines and the Electoral Act, stressing that the PDP did not seek external intervention to resolve its affairs. “We didn’t ask for his help. And we didn’t say we cannot navigate our issues, because we know that constitutionally, we are following due process. And all that has been laid down in the party constitution and the guideline, and of course, the Electoral Act.”
Umar Sani said claims that the party was in disarray were misleading, noting that all internal processes were ongoing and lawful. “His boss, who went to the National Assembly to say that it gives him great pleasure to see us in disarray, and that he was not going to help us. We didn’t ask for his help.”
Sani rejected assertions that the PDP was divided into factions, describing such claims as an attempt to undermine the party’s national elective convention. “They went further to say that our purported national elective convention, which is that they are trying to undermine it, trying to give some substance that in our party we have a faction. And we do not have a faction.”
He explained that while individuals were free to approach the courts, such actions did not amount to factionalisation. “People have a right to go to court to express their grievance, but we don’t have any faction within our party.”
He faulted INEC’s reliance on court orders, arguing that the commission had ignored the legal effect of stays of execution and mischaracterised declaratory and injunctive judgments. “As far as we are concerned, those judgments that were taken to court, there is a stay of execution on those aspects. They are declaratory judgments, but there are those aspects that are injunctive, which is directing us, INEC, to do certain things.”
According to him, the party had taken clear legal positions on all relevant rulings, but INEC refused to acknowledge them. “We have taken a state on them. And taking that state, INEC is refusing to recognise that we have taken a state, but they are saying we only appealed.”
“What is even more disappointing is the fact that they went further to see that our purported national elective convention, which is that they are trying to undermine it, trying to give some substance that in our party we have a faction. And we do not have a faction.”
Umar Sani also criticised INEC’s position on an Ibadan High Court case, noting that the matter was still pending and had been adjourned. “Similarly, INEC was trying to downplay the suit before the Ibadan High Court. Because they were delisted in the case, does not still remove the fact that that case is still ongoing. The judge had already adjourned it to the 26th of January. Now, that case was initially an interim order. But subsequently, the man went for that to make it an interlocutory order, which means that it cannot expire until after the determination of the substantive matter before it. And if INEC is delisted, the fact of the matter is, our argument is, we are not the ones who instituted the action. It is a person who was trying to contest election within our party that instituted the action. And he is saying he is entitled to, he cannot allow the convention not to hold. And so the convention must hold. And if the convention does not hold, he will suffer some injury. And so he filed for it. We only got an order telling us to go ahead with our convention.”
He argued that the suit was instituted by an individual seeking to contest an internal party election, not by the PDP itself. “We are not the ones who instituted the action. It is a person who was trying to contest election within our party that instituted the action.”
He stressed that the Supreme Court had consistently ruled that leadership matters within political parties were not justiciable, citing landmark cases involving the Labour Party and the Social Democratic Party. “INEC’s position is what is irregular, because the Supreme Court has vigorously held that leadership matters within political parties are not justiciable. This has been demonstrated in two very important cases, the case of Labour Party, which recently took place, and the case between INEC and SDP, where the court said that INEC has no power to recognise or not to recognise anybody.”
“The court said that INEC has no power to recognise or not to recognise anybody.”
Looking ahead, Sani expressed confidence that the Court of Appeal would resolve the matter promptly and clear the way for the PDP to move forward. “Yeah, it is possible that the court of appeal may not hear it on time. But we are very confident that the court of appeal will hear it within the first quarter and determine the suitability of the matter before them. And that is what is most important for the court of appeal to hear it and for us to move forward. We are going to move forward because we are very confident in the issues that have been established. These were landmines that were placed before us to stop us from holding conventions.”
“We are very confident that the court of appeal will hear it within the first quarter and determine the suitability of the matter before them. These are matters that are not justiciable.”
He added that once the issues were determined by the appellate court, the PDP would put the controversy behind it and focus on rebuilding ahead of future elections. “Once it is determined, we are ahead. These are matters that are not justiciable.”
PDP National Publicity Secretary, Ini Ememobong said the central issue was not the existence of court cases, but INEC’s conduct as a regulator and the narrative it had chosen to project to the public. He argued that while the party respected the authority of the courts, the electoral umpire had failed in its duty of neutrality.
“The fact that INEC as a regulator should be neutral. And INEC has gone on to say that we are waiting for the judgement of the Court of Appeal. That’s fine. But to go to state facts within their knowledge, selectively state facts within their knowledge, is what we are contending with. And to attempt to create a picture, a narrative, a perspective, that there are factions is another thing we have issues with.”
“To go to state facts within their knowledge, selectively state facts within their knowledge, is what we are contending with. And to attempt to create a picture, a narrative, a perspective, that there are factions is another thing we have issues with.”
Ememobong challenged the basis on which INEC described the PDP as factionalised, arguing that a faction must be of equal and balancing weight. “Why is it so? Now, what is a faction? A faction must be of equal and balancing weight. As of today, there is no body claiming to be the leadership emerging from a convention as the way it should be.”
He said no such condition existed within the party, as there was no competing leadership emerging from a valid national convention. “As of today, there is no body claiming to be the leadership emerging from a convention as the way it should be.”
Tracing the dispute to its origin, Ini Ememobong explained that the crisis began within the National Working Committee, where disciplinary actions were taken in line with party procedures.
“When you backtrack to where the issue started from, you see that the NWC of Damagu, 14 people sat and suspended three people. Three people purportedly sat thereafter to suspend the rest. I mean, so immediately you backtrack to that point, you see that there is no way where there is a faction.”
He dismissed claims that those events resulted in a faction, describing them instead as internal disagreements that had been exaggerated. “We are not contending that there is no case before the Court of Appeal. We are not asking that INEC should break the law or should not respect the law. We are simply saying that INEC should not, cannot, and must not, posture that there is a faction in the PDP.”
“When you backtrack to where the issue started from, you see that there is no way where there is a faction.”
Ini Ememobong also criticised a meeting convened by INEC, describing it as unnecessary and improperly framed. He said the commission’s chairman, a senior advocate of Nigeria, ought to have known that the issues were already before the appellate court. “The senior advocate who is the chairman of INEC knows enough that Friday’s meeting was absolutely unnecessary because, as he knew at that point, the issues were before the Court of Appeal.”
He added that the party had expected the meeting to address specific complaints it had raised about the conduct of INEC officials, including allegations of suppressed documents and evidence. Instead, he said the meeting was used to reinforce the narrative of factional leadership. “When we got the invitation, we thought that it was an invitation to elucidate on the matters we had. We have complained specifically about some officers of INEC, only to arrive there and to find Ayanwa and friends, a committee of Ayanwa and friends coming, and the national chairman of INEC pretending that there were factions in the PDP.”
Ini Ememobong further argued that perception should not be confused with reality, insisting that a rational assessment of events would show that the party’s constitutional structures remained intact and operational. “So, it’s good you spoke about perception. There’s the difference between perception and reality, and that is where the concept of the rational man comes in. So, what does the rational man, who has absolutely no interest in the matter, understand from the flow of events?”
He maintained that the administrative organs, party structure and majority of stakeholders remained aligned with the current leadership, noting that dissent within a political party did not automatically translate into factionalisation. “The entire organs of the party, including the administrative structure of the party, is still with Turaki-SAN. And therefore, what are they going to do with the candidates whose nominations they monitored? They must recognise them. There is no faction. We cannot deny that there are people who have dissent. Democracy is hinged on majority rule, but minority protection. So, we are saying that the majority of the people who truly desire the survival of PDP are with the Turaki-led administration. The administrative staff, the structure, the board of trustees, the state chairman, all the organs. So, you can’t call it a faction.”
According to him, the legality of the convention and related processes would ultimately be determined by the Court of Appeal, and the PDP would comply with the court’s decision. “statement:
“When the judgement comes, the case has been adjourned to sometime in January. When the judgement comes, the party would obey that. And so the court of the court was PDP with your convention and we went on with INEC. And when you go into the validity or otherwise of that, that is before the Court of Appeal. Our position is simple, that when you go back to facts and even the law, the justiciability of the matter before the courts, you are going to know that is what the Court of Appeal will speak to.”
Erizia Rubyjeana
Follow us on:
